Foundation discussion

Tell me if I'm wrong, but this is the book that starts off telling about a scholar/ scientist of a field thats a mix of math, history, sociology, etc that predicted the current empire of the galaxy would eventually fail. And thus this scholar setup at a remote star system the civilization that would replace the current empire.

I started reading the book I described(weather it is the one your reading or not)when I was with dad over the summer. The reason I stopped is because I got absorbed into the Japanese studying.

Yes - this is Foundation. Great story IMO.

One of the most overrated works in the whole SF canon! Read the first 3 books but that was enough for me! I loved Asimov but god he waffles in this!

I think it's not as good as the I, Robot collection, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's over-rated. I think it did somewhat jump the shark a bit when he tried to unify all his books into one Asimoviverse.

THE largest scope of any book I have ever written in my life. Definitely a great read, do not hesitate, do not pass, go to it!

The first 3 Foundation books are great. Asimov wrote them as a serial in a magazine, I do believe. They're like a succession of short stories with a unifying theme. Some of the later stuff got a bit tedious and I agree about trying to combine the Robot stories and the Foundation series. It didn't really work, did it?

I accidentally read them out of order - loved foundation and empire, but just didn't really get into the rest of them which was disappointing. Maybe if I wait a few more years and try again.

I agree that the last two are better. Foundation and Empire and Second Foundation benefit from being longer stories and so the characters and plot development are much better. Loved both Bayta and Arcadia characters. The relationship between the Mule and Bayta is delightful because it is so pivotal, and the twists and turns at the end of Second Foundation make it one of the best books I have read.

I just finished reading the entire canon (Asimov only, not the fillers) this past year. I had never read any of the robot or Galactic Empire novels, though I read the Complete Robot and Foundation series when young (35 years ago).

I'd have to say of the original three Foundation novels, the first was better than the last two, as it was quite original, while the others were strained and weak. Now, this is a 50 year old perspective, for I did for many, many years include them in my top sci-fi lists. I was disappointed in the last four books he wrote for the Foundation Universe, particularly the Foundation prequels. Again, strained and seemingly rushed. And without spoiling, I found the ending of "Foundation and Earth" to be pretty cheesy.

I happen to find it a bit redundant, with all my respect for Asimov. I didn't really get into it...

I liked the Foundation series, but not nearly as much as I dug the Robot books, which were really just mystery novels filed under science fiction.

The glory of the Foundation series is reading through it all and being able to look back at the majesty of epic sweep and flow. Any single Foundation novel falls flat IMHO as it is only a piece of the entire picture. I was sort of bored with the first two books. It wasn't until I was able to look back over the path the novels had taken me and then look ahead in speculation, that I appreciated the grandeur of Foundation over all.

I loved this series. I dont feel it was over rated but I do understand it may only appeal to certain individuals. If your looking for action packed sci-fi, this wouldnt be the series for you.

Larry wrote: "One of the most overrated works in the whole SF canon! Read the first 3 books but that was enough for me! I loved Asimov but god he waffles in this!"

I think he did say that he had to fill the pages on the publisher's request. I did enjoy the books though.

Read the first and the second, and was by then utterly bored.

The first 3 books are great. Like most excellent Sci Fi books the idea is often the most interesting part of the book.

It took me a little while to get into the rhythm of the writing and the book but I found them easy to read.

i could only grab the second one.. really liked it. twists and turns make it thoroghly enjoyable. Still looking for the first and third books

Yep, that's Foundation all right. The trilogy has got some flaws to it, but overall I'd say it's a really good read, was highly influential, and is therefore definitely worth checking out. I say finish it, and read the second and third too. Can't stop watching a show after just the first act... :)

The fourth is great so far too (I'm about half way through).

Will wrote: "The fourth is great so far too (I'm about half way through)."

That's a prequel is it not?

Well, there is a prequel as well, but I haven't read that one yet. I'm talking about Foundation's Edge, which continues the story. I finished it and I thought it was really great.

Will wrote: "Well, there is a prequel as well, but I haven't read that one yet. I'm talking about Foundation's Edge, which continues the story. I finished it and I thought it was really great."

Ah crap, I thought the third book concluded things! This is Game of Thrones all over again...

Haha, he wrote two more after the trilogy PLUS a prequel as well! :O

Let me guess, Foundation and Earth was the last one in the series, minus the prequel?

I usually enjoy Asimov, and I did finish Foundation but only because I was working nights and it was easy to put down when things got busy. I wouldn't necessarily recommend it

Matthew wrote: "Let me guess, Foundation and Earth was the last one in the series, minus the prequel?"

Yup!

I loved the Foundation novels. But don't read them in sequence of publishing date. When I last read them, the correct reading sequence was as follows:

1952 The Currents Of Space
1951 The Stars, Like Dust
1950 Pebble In The Sky
1988 Prelude To Foundation
1993 Forward The Foundation
1951 Foundation (Book 1)
1952 Foundation And Empire (Book 2)
1953 Second Foundation (Book 3)
1982 Foundations Edge (Book 4)
1986 Foundation And Earth (Book 5)
1997 Foundations Fear (Gregory Benford)

Hope this is helpful for some who are considering reading them.

I don't really rate all the books in the above list as being part of the Foundation Series. For me the Foundation Series comprises only of the three linked volumes published in order from 1951 to 1953. These volumes were basically collections of linked stories that followed one after the other, the most being in the first volume. The latter two had just two larger stories in each.

All the later books I discount as mere comercial exploitation of the series probably engendered by the publisher. They were published thirty years on, and even if Issac Asimov was really that interested in revisiting the series why wait that long? And one wasn't even written by Asimov.

As for the first three on the list these are examples of other good stories by Issac Asimov, of which he wrote a great many. And whether linked or not, they are not essential to the trilogy.

The same thing happened with Larry Niven's Ringworld. Take a really good idea and squeeze the life out of it until it is well and truly dead. Publishers don't care about good ideas or stories, just their bottom line.

Sorry, did I say all that out loud?

Foundations Edge was really good, regardless of how much later it was written. Asimov probably just wanted to move on to different things for a while. That's not a reason to discount them.

The complete Foundation Universe series is listed here: http://www.goodreads.com/series/49421...
I noted I missed 2 more Foundation novels which I didn't know existed and were written after I read the rest. These are Foundation and Chaos by Greg Bear and Foundation's Triumph by David Brin. Hope to get to these some time soon!

Will wrote: "Foundations Edge was really good, regardless of how much later it was written. Asimov probably just wanted to move on to different things for a while. That's not a reason to discount them."

From what I've read, it was years of pressure by fans and his editor that convinced him to return to the series. Nice to be wanted!

As fas as im concerned reading the foundation books are one of the greatest joys of my life. The story was great but more importantly while reading the books you can seamlessly interweave the mathetical principals described within into your own mathematical theories you have conjured desribing your own life and all its idiosycracies. Asimov in my opion doesnt waste time trying to be over poetic. He just gets right to the point of including science and math into the lives of his characters and the readers involved.

Great book. Epic, mind -boggling. Great for character analysis. Never went on to read the rest of the series. Gotta get around to that!

For those of you who don't "get" the series, a moment of perspective. How old were you in 1951, when the first book written came out? I was 4, hardly the audience Asimov was writing to. In his, and my, later life, I got to meet him briefly, but he was my parents' generation. That said, I love his books, including all of the Foundation series. I just remember when I am reading them not to expect them to sound like 21st century works.

Further, I have to admit than when I read the Foundation series, Asimov was still alive and writing and had not made the connections he did in later works, so I read I, Robot and the Foundation books separately. Well, authors are always allowed to have later ideas. Maybe I'll have to read both series again in the new order.

Michel wrote: "The complete Foundation Universe series is listed here: http://www.goodreads.com/series/49421...
I noted I missed 2 more Foundation novels which I didn't know exi..."
Actually, a lot of people might even say that the End of Eternity is actually the first book from the series.
*spoiler*
In End of Eternity the story describes why exactly Asimovs world is populated by the human race only.

To be quite honest, I can even relate books like The Gods Themselves to the whole story... but I guess thats just me.

Michel wrote: "I loved the Foundation novels. But don't read them in sequence of publishing date. When I last read them, the correct reading sequence was as follows:

1952 The Currents Of Space
1951 The Stars, Li..."

I'm reading Prelude to Foundation right now, and in the forward Asimov recommends also reading all of his Robot stories and a few other stories, as well. So, you know, just read everything he ever wrote and you'll be good.

In his writing and in interviews, Asimov said that he only wrote the prequel & sequels because he was being pressured by his publisher and fans to continue the stories. Asimov being Asimov, though, I think he also couldn't resist the urge to retcon all of his stories into one, gigantic magnum opus. He was nothing if not confident in his own genius.

Whatever his reasons, I thoroughly enjoyed Foundation and am enjoying Prelude to Foundation almost as much.

Personally I love the original Foundation trilogy and consider it possibly the best SF ever written, though that may reflect the fact that I first read it when I was just a kid and easy to impress.

Asimov's prequel and sequels are also fairly good, although I think it would have been better if he hadn't squeezed them into the same universe as the robot stories. Most of the invited contributions by other writers are OK, but Gregory Benford's contribution doesn't fit, in my opinion.

I read the original three books in the 70's.
Loved it. Thirty years or so later started reading the added books.
I personally like all of them. Some I have read three times.
A big fan of the Robot stories very much too.

I love the foundation trilogy. There is a classic sense of originality that is very hard to reproduce.

I was a little disappointed with the 4th and 5th books. They were good, but I felt that they broke the original trilogy's story direction. I didn't like the way all that effort of human psychohistoric calculating was later undermined by being attributed to the work of a robot. The original story ended perfectly, it wasn't about the destination but the journey towards the end of the millenium. The latter books should've been made in a series of their own.

I will confess to not being an Asimov fan.

I found the Foundation series (only read the original 3) to be overhyped and tedious.

In particular the vision of a future world being built on 1950's thinking with little new and novel in the society and behaviours of the characters, is not credible.

His characters are wooden and plots thin.

Stretching the trilogy and then trying to bind in the other works he's written into Asimoverse was more an exercise in cynical marketing than an extension of his craft which I hope the publisher is responsible for.

If you want a "new society" read try Alistair Reynolds and the Chasm City universe.

I've only read the first two of the original series ("Foundation" and "Foundation and Empire"), but I did quite enjoy them, more for the space politics than for characterisation or plot or anything like that. I much prefer Asimov's short stories, particularly "Robot Dreams" and "I, Robot", just because they often give you an interesting philosophical point to consider.

Larry wrote: "One of the most overrated works in the whole SF canon! Read the first 3 books but that was enough for me! I loved Asimov but god he waffles in this!"

The trilogy books are the weaker ones among the Foundation saga, the latter books are better; it shows how is writing evolved. The trilogy is written in the 40's - if i'm not wrong - and that says alot about it.

Ovidiu wrote: "Larry wrote: "One of the most overrated works in the whole SF canon! Read the first 3 books but that was enough for me! I loved Asimov but god he waffles in this!"

The trilogy books are the weake..."

I think the vast majority of readers would say the opposite. It's true that the later books have better characterisation (or perhaps, rather, more interest in characterisation). But they're also saggy, floppy, waffley, and vague. Whereas the original books are crystal clear, concise, structured, bright. Asimov, unfortunately, wasn't that great at character development and realistic dialogue, but was great at ideas and simplicity, so moving away from ideas and simplicity toward character development and dialogue... well, it shows off the worst of Asimov, rather than the best.

[Caveat: I really enjoyed the later books when I was younger. But I was more forgiving then.]

I don't really agree with this often repeated notion that Star Wars was a turning point in Science Fiction. You have to remember that generations of youngsters grew up watching Saturday Matinees with Flash Gordon and Buck Rodgers. From the Thirties onwards they were fascinated by men in cardboard silver suits and rocketships on strings. Science Fiction or Westerns, it didn't really matter. Yes, Star Wars was one of the first times that Science Fiction of this particular type had been done well, although I have to say I prefer Attack of the Clones as it is as near a perfect example of this genre as you can get. But in essence Star Wars was a rework of EE 'Doc' Smith's clasic Lensmen Series, so it wasn't really new either. Assimov is a totally different animal. He specialised in the true 'What if...' From Foundation to Night Fall there is no real comparison.

Sorry to ramble.

For me, the original trilogy (Foundation, Foundation & Empire, and Second Foundation) was wonderful but don't bother reading beyond that. In fact, I believe they were once voted as the best trilogy in history ... ahead of Tolkien's Lord of the Rings.

I will admit that I didn't go through all of the previous comments so it's possible I'm repeating comments made by others.

I dunno, I found the later Foundation books to be just as good. Slightly different, of course, but still great.

Foundation one word review: BOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRING. I could go on and say more, but need I?

For readers all over the world, it was Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke rather than Star Wars or Trek that was SF, also of course Jules Verne and Hugo for the older generations. Give me a good SCIFI author any time. Only much later, some SCIFI Hollywood style has become worth watching. Much of it does not differentiate between Fantasy and SCIFI. Some directors like Kubrick attempted to do some justice ... and there are lots of good Scifis now, thanks to more thinking and reading directors... Star Wars and Star Trek seemed like village theatre to start with... from the point of view of "serious" SCIFI. The good thing is, now everything's become more sophisticated. But still you have really funny and stupid SCIPI movies like ... um.. Independence Day?!!!!

Kevan wrote: "David wrote: "I don't really agree with this often repeated notion that Star Wars was a turning point in Science Fiction. You have to remember that generations of youngsters grew up watching Saturd..."

I guess this depends on how old you are. "Younger generation" might say "Star Wars" was influential, others may remember Buck Rogers. I happen to remember 2001. I'll be more contentious now and say that "old style science fiction" is dead nowadays. There are very few "ideas / visions" of the future like Foundation.